Gender-Based Attitudes About Open Space

GENDER-BASED ATTITUDES ABOUT OPEN SPACE A PAPER SUBMITTED FOR COMPLETION OF SENIOR RESEARCH FOR THE COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES STETSON UNIVERSITY BY Carly Batts IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE(S) OF BACHELOR OF ARTS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES & GEOGRAPHY ADVISOR Dr. Jason M. Evans, Ph.D. MAY 2017 2 Gender-Based Attitudes About Open Space Table of Contents LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 5 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 11 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................. 14 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................ 15 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 18 FIGURES & TABLES ............................................................................................................................... 19 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................... 22 WORKS CITED ....................................................................................................................................... 27 List of Illustrations Figure 1 – Female’s Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes during the Day………..19 Figure 2 - Male's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes during the Day…………….20 Figure 3- Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes during the Night……….20 Figure 4- Male’s Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes during the Night…………21 3 List of Tables Table 1- Lists results of males and females for demographics, and preferences…….21 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my professors Dr. Jason Evans, Dr. Wendy Anderson, and Dr. Rachel Core for their constant support and advice during my senior year at Stetson University. I would also like to thank Martha Hunsucker, peer, and editor for her time at the writing center helping me to clarify my ideas and findings. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Mary Pollock for convincing me to take my first gender studies class my senior year, for this project, would be nothing without it. Abstract This study documents the relationship between men and women and their attitude towards open space attributes. Attributes such as beauty, safety, and accessibility were measured with an Attitude Toward Object model, which allowed for the computation of an importance score for each. My hypothesis was that women would interpret open space more negatively than men. I will expect women to be less willing to interact in open space, and more afraid of open spaces at night. Studies have shown that women have been kept out of nature since the agricultural revolution and often are the victimized gender of nighttime crimes. The connections drawn between the data and each gender included, a strong tendency for passive 4 recreation amongst women, along with women placing higher importance ratings for conservation. Both genders ranked the same attributes for open space during the day and night in the same order of importance – this could indicate that open space socialization remains similar for each gender, though consistently women gave higher importance ratings for all attributes. For instance, men were more likely to have ‘never’ participated in open space recreation at night, but women rated their own personal feelings of safety on a lower scale (women indicate they were more fearful at night in open spaces). Introduction Today, Florida’s population continues to rise with over 19 million residents, only having witnessed a brief decrease in 2008, similar to trends seen throughout the country (Rayer and Smith 2014). Yet, land space is not increasing. This makes it imperative for government officials to understand general tendencies involved in residential preferences, as well as look at conditioned fears and attitudes towards open space. Residential preference is a theory that provides a framework for understanding citizens’ choices on where they will decide to live (Clark 2009). I plan on combining this theory with my research on comfort in the dark, and attitudes towards specific attributes of open spaces, such as the importance of aesthetics, easy access, and safety. By examining individual responses based on gender, I hope to understand the United State’s potential rural growth pattern for the future, including residential preferences as well as the attributes citizens find important to have in an open space. I hypothesize that women will have a fear of the outdoors and will generally choose to live in city or suburbs. Women will be equally if 5 not more fearful at night, whereas men will relish the open space and oppose living in cities. As, surveys suggest that most women are fearful of the dark, largely because of many violent crimes that occur after dark such as rape and murder (Haskell and Randall 1998). Specifically I will be surveying Stetson undergraduates on their attitudes towards open space to measure ideas on personal safety, beauty, and access. 11% of hunters in the US today are women, which could mean that women have a much less comfortable state when outdoors, as a result they are less willing to interact with nature (Metcalf et. al 2015). To test my hypothesis, I will create a survey that allows current male and female Stetson undergraduate students to denote their comfort levels, and attitudes towards rural environments. Specifically, I chose to sample both genders of college age students, as they will be shaping the housing market in the very near future. In comparing citizens’ fears and attitudes towards open space as well as residential preferences for rural environments, we can better understand each gender’s implicit needs, allowing officials to plan improved open spaces, while conserving open areas for all residents. Literature Review Several theoretical frameworks that I have solicited for my study are rooted in feminist philosophy, others in residential preference. Regardless, they will be used to look at human history through the socialization of women, which I believe has resulted in the tendency for women to be more afraid of nature and the dark. For my eco-feminist theory I will use Shiva Vandana’s 1988 work, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and 6 Development. As an Indian author and feminist scholar, she theorizes that woman are actually closer to nature than men as they have been the ones handling the crops since the domestication of plants. This feminist theory espouses upon the kinship between mother earth and human mothers, sharing an innate understanding of the fragility of reproduction. Feminists also believe that women’s value was taken away when farming was mechanized and industrialized for large-scale cash cropping (Vandana 1988). It is with this transition that I believe women lost touch with nature, taking on larger roles within the interior of the home, with domestic activities, which include child rearing, house keeping, and cooking. I theorize that by relinquishing this agrarian part of women’s selves and relegation to domestic chores, women have generally lost their ability to be comfortable in nature. Thus, this background information influenced my belief that I will see a trend of discomfort for women in open spaces. This history of excluding women from nature and open space could push today’s women towards suburban, and city residential preferences. Nature has been proven to improve public health; regardless of gender, “natural environments are linked to good health and/or have restorative effects which have been supported by a range of experimental and qualitative studies, in natural or urban settings” (MacBride-Stewart et al 2016). Women, because of their biological role, are theorized to be more connected to nature. This article by MacBride-Stewart tries to dissuade readers from buying into this notion of women’s connection to nature based solely on biology, instead it focuses on women’s connection to the environmental economy, specifically their traditional role as subsistence farmers. The article goes on to discuss the negative consequences for women who do not have access to sustainable development. Without 7 sustainable development many women will be marginalized, and will continue to be left out of natural spaces, and driven to cities. Empowered by this knowledge, city planners should recognize that it would be shameful for women to not have access to or comfort in open space in such a way that limits them in reaping these public health benefits. Contrary to this belief that women are the only ones to have been marginalized by modern agriculture is the liberal feminist theory that says women were the only ones affected by industrialization. This discounts other gender disparities. Men too were changed in the face of industrialization, forced to give up traditional trades in order to support their families, most moving to the city. Dr. Zimmerman, an expert on environmental ethics, argues in his 1987 paper Feminism, Deep Ecology, and Environmental Ethics” that “Reducing men's status to otherness because they cannot actively participate in the body - consciousness that provides women with a more acute awareness of nature effectively reverses the hierarchical dualism which many ecofeminists (paradoxically) claim to want to overcome.” This in itself is true, and should be taken into consideration when thinking about men’s and women’s connection to various environments, but it still does not address the difference between their socialized roles, and thus comforts. Men, when taken away from primarily subsistence villages, were forced to relocate to cities but they still worked outside the home. The difference is that women were removed from similar agrarian jobs only to be shut in by the domestic activities of a city dwelling. Thus, women’s experiences and knowledge of the outdoors were marginalized, and then squandered when young daughters could not be given this outdoor education. Therefore, it was my belief that my study would see a greater amount of discomfort among women over men in open space. 8 Looking at other key empirical findings that are comparable to my own study, Ge and Hokoa (2006) did a survey that looked at residential choice. The researchers define residential choice as “both a choice of a certain type of housing and a choice of a certain residential environment.” People’s choices about their residence can be made considering multiple attributes, but for my study I want to look at safety and comfort “which could be explained as the choice of characteristics of the place itself, such as its physical layout and social composition.” This study shows that residential preference reflects life values making for three separate “patterns” of housing consumers, which include: the “pragmatist, enjoyable-naturalists, and community preferred.” Regardless of the individual, everyone valued safety and comfort the same, but had different expectations of convenience. To better understand consumer’s preferences, I also looked at Jabareen’s (2005) study. He says, “The choice made by a particular household is guided by needs or preferences and restricted by income and by opportunities offered by the housing market. The choice of a specific dwelling, however, is inextricably connected with the choice of the desired residential environment” So what are these needs or preferences that determine the residential environment? According to Jabareen’s study given to Gaza City residents, it was determined that people prefer to live with extended family if a single detached home is not available. Survey respondents preferred this to living with families of similar economic status. Extrapolating on this information, one could guess that people who choose to live in close proximity to family, will live in a more densely populated area in order to have closeness. Attitudes towards woman also changed housing preferences with those whose households were more conservative about gender roles and responsibilities preferred more “private” living styles to “protect” their women. This 9 study concludes that cultural factors are a driving force for most decisions made about housing choice. With this knowledge this, I address questions in my survey about the importance of proximity by looking at rural area preferences. In general, people’s residential preferences are shifting from shared city space to wanting more private singular homes, which are not sustainable for a growing population and shrinking natural landscape, making it imperative that my study measures these changing attitudes in order to better serve the people as well as the natural environment. In Senior, Webster, and Blank’s 2004 article, it was determined that most people who prefer urban landscapes were working and single, or childless older couples. As “evidence indicates that many households seem to aspire to more land consumption per capita and tend not to regard central city amenities as sufficient compensation for living at higher densities.” This study, which took place in South Wales, conflicts with Jabareen’s study, which looked at Gaza City inhabitants, but this may have occurred because of differed preference. For instance, it seems Gaza residents may have had a more conservative cultural view with over 98% of the population Arabic Muslims, whom had responded in their surveys that they wanted closeness but privacy. Women’s fear of violence is a debilitating fear that often makes it so they won’t participate in everyday life activities including: leaving their homes at night, or using public transportation after dark. Because of this reality we must consider either making cities safer or rural areas more appealing. Women are worried about being raped or murdered, which are often crimes carried out by men against women (Haskell and Randall 1998). This finding supports my hypothesis that women will be less comfortable in the dark, but does not support that they will prefer living in the city. Although some 10 women have experienced significant violence in the home, there is also violence against women in much less expected scenarios outside the home. In Haskell and Randall’s article they describe the fear women have for urban areas at night, talking to women’s “self-expression” so often limited when women are uncomfortable with their environment. This brings up the concern that women don’t know how to “interact” with many environments simply because they have been too fearful to have ever learned otherwise (Sur 2014). This discomfort experienced by women is followed by fear, which allows us to heighten our senses and react when needed. Fear of the dark, although said to be an unrealistic fear in children, has been shown to be realistic in adults. These fears are often stimulated by environmental factors. Nyctophobia or fear of the dark occurs when a subject has an extreme irrational fear where they have anxiety, or distress, and voluntarily avoid the dark. More than 1/3 of college-aged individuals have phobic like symptoms, but little is known as to what they fear specifically in the dark (Levos and Zacchilli 2015). Students were surveyed on their fear of the dark, and in this study were found to be significantly anxious about the dark. This anxiety could come from the general belief that they have a far greater chance of victimization in the dark, women particularly believe this more often. On the other hand, men are more likely to be involved in their environment (e.g., on “environmental” committees), as they are viewed as more skilled or knowledgeable within the natural realm. Therefore, one could argue that current natural environments have been designed for the comfort of men, and the exclusion of women (Kafarowski 2005). Paradoxically, another study found that college age students found a walk in the forest (in the daytime) versus a walk in the city as more “restorative” after a 11 state of attentional fatigue (such as listening to a lecture in class) (Hartig and Staats 2006). For my study, this supports that people will generally find comfort in open spaces, but does not discuss whether this will change with nighttime conditions. All in all, this literature supports that city planners need a greater understanding of each gender’s implicit needs in order to create an environment that serves both. Methodology For my senior research, I sought to determine how comfortable each gender is in open space. To do this, I surveyed the existing population of Stetson University undergraduate students, by using a computer-distributed survey on the Stetson Today email. This email was sent out once a week for four weeks to all undergraduate students. Because I was collecting firsthand data, I applied for and received the Institute Research Boards (IRB) approval, which means the National Health Institute has certified me through their online course for the protection of research participants. I then turned in a proposal outlining my intent for my research, explaining how I will maximize benefits, minimize risks, and employ confidentiality for my test subjects, which was approved. I created a survey design with structured questions that would measure how important certain attributes of open space were to each individual gender both during the day and at night (see Appendix A). I also surveyed students on how desirable a rural environment is to live in – by doing this I measured residential preference. I avoided questions that may trigger negative emotions for my research participants, such as “why are you uncomfortable in the dark”. 12 To get a better grasp of who was taking my survey I asked participants some background questions about their gender, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic and relationship status. Additionally, I asked questions about their opinions as to how important it is to them in general to conserve land, live somewhere they feel is beautiful, and to consider personal safety for open space. This survey was set up in a similar manner to a questionnaire used by many social scientists and marketers – the Attitude Toward Object Survey or Fishbein Model. This model described by Grover and Vriens aims at understanding why individuals feel a certain way towards an idea or object (Grover and Vriens 2006) by evaluating people’s attitudes towards a set of attributes. For this study in particular, the object was open space and the attitude I measured was beauty, safety, and ability to easily find an open space. I then used these answers to analyze and compare how important certain attributes of an open space environment are for each gender. I consulted The Handbook of Marketing Research, which gives the following advice:, “two concerns in designing multiple-choice questions are (a) the number of alternatives that should be included and (b) order or position of bias” (Grover and Vriens 2006). Thus, I knew I needed to make a comprehensive answer bank so that all opinions were captured, recognizing that the placement of these answers may have had an effect on their selection. The placement of my gender question was strategically at the end of my survey as to not have bias. Structured surveys have been seen as “easier for respondents to answer” and “easier to analyze and tabulate” (Grover and Vriens 2006). To test that I had created an effective survey, I had Dr. Jason Evans take the survey, so that I could have feedback on the questionnaire before sending it out to respondents. Because Dr. Evans is a male, I though it would be best to have a female professor, Dr. Rachel Core of the 13 sociology department, take the survey as well to make sure it makes sense to both genders. After I collected this data, I analyzed my results by examining the independent variables, which were gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and relationship status each respondent gave in relation to the dependent variable: open space preferences. It was my ultimate hope to survey at least 10% of the total Stetson undergraduate population, which would amount to two hundred and fifty subjects. My intention was to have no personal contact with any of the human subjects involved in my study. I did this by sending out a mass email to students through the Stetson Today with a link included for my survey. I obtained permission from IT to send out this mass email. I planned on sending out the link three times over the course of a month, but ended up sending the link four times. Once I had received an appropriate amount of responses I closed the survey and initiated sending out the link through Survey Monkey to a random individual for their incentive of a $25 e-gift card to Amazon. To look at the correlations between gender and their comfort in open space I used the formula associated with the ATO/Fishbein Model, which calculates the strength between answers and respondents in an attitude score. This can then be taken and ranked based off importance and beliefs to see overall preferences; I had two separate calculations so that each gender could have their own attitude scores. To do this, one takes the average number “score” given by each gender, and then multiples that line by the average “importance score” for that category (such as safety), which results in an attitude score. Take the average importance score of (x) attribute and multiply it by the average importance score of (y) individual (in this instance the gender group) to obtain your attitude score. I organized my response data into an Excel document to do this. The 14 Attitude Toward Object/Fishbein Model was not modified or combined with various other methods for this project. Results The survey that was sent out to Stetson undergraduates had a total of 146 respondents. 109 of the survey takers were females, 34 were males, and 2 respondents were transgender. When looking at the data on attitudes towards attributes of an open space, women and men had very similar responses. Both ranked safety as most important, then beauty, followed by access for open spaces during the day. For nighttime conditions in an open space, both ranked beauty as most important then safety, with access being the least important. Women ranked conservation efforts as being more important then men but both men and women responded that they were unlikely to want to live in a rural area. Men were more interested in playing a sport outside whereas women most often responded that they like to hike. A 70% majority of survey takers were Caucasian which is representative of Stetson’s demographics. The sample population had 35% responding between the ages of 18 and 19, and 45% between 20 and 21. Of the 146 respondents, 54% of survey takers were not in a relationship. 35% of women and men generally responded as having a household income between $50,000-$100,000. When collecting this data I saw a large amount of respondents answer the first link that was sent out to the population, but found a small but steady amount added each additional time the link was sent. I did not expect to have so little male respondents and such a large amount of female survey takers. 15 Discussion My hypothesis that women would generally be more afraid of the dark was not supported by the survey responses, as both men and women said that they were more concerned with the “beauty” of an open space at night over safety (Figures 3,4). Both were equally likely to spend time in an open space at night, most respondents saying they are in an open space at night once a month. This was puzzling as both women and men responded that they were more interested in “safety” during the day for an open space, which contradicts previous studies (Figures 1,2). Research that has shown women are more likely to be victimized at night, which would make safety as the most important attribute a reasonable response, is not what my data supports (Haskell and Randall 1998). Contrarily, one is more likely to experience personal safety during the day, which would suggest that most respondents should value the beauty of an open space more than at night. The ability to easily access an open space was always the least important to respondents (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4). This trend displayed by my data on people’s attitude for accessing open space was supported by Ge and Hokoa’s (2006) study, where they found that regardless of the individual, everyone valued safety and comfort the same, but had different expectations for convenience. This could be supported by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which denotes how one must have basic necessities fulfilled such as ‘feelings of safety’ before they can care about anything more than survival, but conflicts with the fact that everyone denoted beauty as being most important to them in an open space (McLeod 2016). My hypothesis that women would be less willing to interact in open space compared to men however was supported by the data. Only 37% of the female population 16 responded that they use an open space at least once a week, whereas over 41% of men stated that they use open space once a week, with only 4% of the sample population stating that they never go to an open space during the day. This trend in the data is supported by socioeconomic findings that state higher income families have more opportunities to be outside, simply because they are less stressed, given more education about health, and live in safer neighborhoods conducive to outdoor activities (Pampel et al 2010). My sample population had 56% with family incomes over $50,000 annually. Additionally, 40% of women in this study reported enjoying hiking in an open space. Hiking is considered a non-competitive, mostly observant, passive recreation typical of what is socialized for women to be doing. Interestingly enough, people who enjoy passive recreation such as hiking have a strong correlation for positive environmental attitudes towards conservation, which my data supports (Tarrant and Green 2010). In fact, a majority, 51% of the female population found conserving open space areas to be ‘Most Important’, with only 1.85% considering conservation ‘Not Important’. Only one participant responded to the survey with ‘hunting’ as their favorite open space activity – surprisingly that was a female. Conversely, men denoted in this study that they would rather participate more in active recreation, with 35% choosing ‘playing a sport’ in open space. Only 16% of the female sample chose playing a sport as their preferred open space activity. This recreation is not observant of the environment and could have a strong correlation for negative environmental attitudes as playing a sport is competitive and generally about conquering an environment to better serve you during a game. This notion was supported in my study as men found conservation to be ‘Most Important’ only 35% of the time and ‘Not Important’ 2.94% of the time. 17 Yet, both men and women were equally unlikely to not want to live in a rural environment, only partially supporting my hypothesis that women would not want to live in a rural area but men would. I believe that rural areas remain unappealing to my sample population as rural areas are often seen as intellectually desolate, and economically challenging, and for a soon to be college graduate this is an unappealing combination. Additionally, in Senior, Webster, and Blank’s 2004 article, this conclusion that both college age men and women would prefer urban landscapes as they are the next cohort to be working and single – a majority of my sample population was single (54%). Since the 1990’s, poverty for rural areas compared to metro areas has gone down. Unfortunately, for minority groups poverty still remains high for rural areas (Lichter and Johnson 2007). The partial support for women not wanting to live in rural areas as seen in my data – may have been for reasons outside of the socialized fear I thought they might have surrounding an open space. For further research, I suggest that Residential Preference theory be used more intensely on this data to project where a person will choose to live. Looking specifically at whole families’ residential preferences, both male and female opinions must be considered. A common misconception in America is that men are the predominant head of households, and although this may be the socialized norm, it is not always the case, looking at the figures. According to the PEW Research Center for Social and Demographic trends, 63% of single mothers make more money than their ex-husbands or ex-boyfriends. Considerably less married women make more money than their husbands with only 37% being considered the “head of household.” Regardless of this, 43% of women make more decisions for their family than their male counterpart, with only 31% 18 of couples deciding equally (PEW Research). Keeping these statistics in mind, we must recognize that women are having a significant impact on the family’s choice for residential preference, even in the patriarchal society we live in today. Thus, if women are generally resistant to the idea of living in rural areas and are choosing to live elsewhere, we must rethink strategies to help convince women to value open space within the confines of suburban and city areas. Conclusion This study’s data supports a change in both men and women’s socialization concerning open space and residential preferences than what is seen in existing data. My hypothesis that women would be more afraid of the dark, and that men would relish open space greater were both disproven. In fact, both genders seemed more appreciative of the rare beauty open space provides at night, over worrying about victimization. Additionally, when looking at men’s attitudes towards open space specifically at night their scores showed more fear over women’s. Women, if anything, seemed more excited about the opportunity to finally be able to participate in open space recreation – they were more likely to participate in non-competitive outdoor activities. This passive style of recreation has been related to a stronger personal conviction for conservation efforts. Overall, women and men appear to have had the same socialization for appreciating certain open space attributes – women just have stronger reactions. Both males and females in the college age cohort were uninterested in living in a rural environment, as there does not seem to be any personal gain for this demographics needs. This finding in 19 itself looks good for future land conservation – women being on the forefront for committing to the necessary undertaking. Figures & Tables Figure 1: Displays female’s attitudes towards the importance of beauty, safety, and easy accessibility in an open space during the day. The day score was multiplied by the general attitude score to give the overall importance rating following the ATO/Fishbein Model. 4.4 3.6 16.2 4.1 4.4 18.1 3.5 3.2 11.4 0 5 10 15 20 Day - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - Females Day - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - FemalesDay - Females General General General General Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance Rating Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes during the Day during the Dayduring the Dayduring the Day during the Dayduring the Dayduring the Day during the Dayduring the Dayduring the Day BeautyBeautyBeautyBeauty Beauty Safety SafetySafetySafety AccessAccess AccessAccess20 Figure 2: Displays male’s attitudes towards the importance of beauty, safety, and easy accessibility in an open space during the day. The day score was multiplied by the general attitude score to give the overall importance rating following the ATO/Fishbein Model. Figure 3: Displays female’s attitudes towards the importance of beauty, safety, and easy accessibility in an open space at night. The night score was multiplied by the general attitude score to give the overall importance rating following the ATO/Fishbein Model. 4.2 3.3 14.3 4.2 3.6 15.5 3.6 3.3 12.4 0 5 10 15 20 Day- MalesDay- MalesDay- Males Day- MalesDay- MalesDay- MalesDay- MalesDay- MalesDay- Males General General General General Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance Rating Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day Attributes during the Day BeautyBeautyBeautyBeauty Beauty Safety SafetySafetySafety AccessAccess AccessAccess 3.7 3.6 13.8 2.4 4.4 10.6 2.9 3.2 9.5 0 5 10 15 Night- Females Night- FemalesNight- Females Night- FemalesNight- FemalesNight- FemalesNight- FemalesNight- FemalesNight- FemalesNight- Females General General General General Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance Rating Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Female's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes at NightAttributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at NightAttributes at NightAttributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night BeautyBeautyBeautyBeauty Beauty Safety SafetySafetySafety AccessAccess AccessAccess21 Figure 4 : Displays male’s attitudes towards the importance of beauty, safety, and easy accessibility in an open space at night. The night score was multiplied by the general attitude score to give the overall importance rating following the ATO/Fishbein Model. Table 1: Male Female Age 38% 18-19, 50% 20-21, 2.9% 23-26, 2.9% 27-35, 5.88% 36-47, 0% 48 or older 35.7% 18-19, 43% 20-21, 13.7% 0.9% 23-26, 3.6% 27-35, 1.8% 36-47, .09% 48 or older Ethnicity 79% Caucasian, 2.9% Asian, 5.8% Hispanic, 2.9% Multiple Races Caucasian 67.8%, African American or Black 7.3%, Asian 4.59%, Hispanic 8.26%, Multiple Races 9.2% Family Income 29% Less than 30k, 8.8% 30-50k, 35% 50-100k, 26% 100k or more 20% Less than 30k, 23.8% 30-50K, 35% 50-100k, 20% 100k or more Relationship Status 64.7% Single, 11% Casually dating, 8% In a Serious Relationship, 0% Married 51% Single, 8.2% Casually Dating, 37.6% In a Serious Relationship, 2.7% Married Rural Preference (1-5) 2.94 Slightly Likely 2.95 Slightly Likely Importance of Conservation (1-5) 4.29 Fairly Important 4.83 Fairly Important Table 1: Lists results of males and females for demographics, and preferences. 3.5 3.3 11.8 11.8 3.1 3.6 11.4 3.2 3.3 10.8 0 5 10 15 Night- Males Night- MalesNight- MalesNight- Males Night- MalesNight- MalesNight- MalesNight- MalesNight- Males General General General Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance Rating Importance RatingImportance RatingImportance RatingImportance Rating Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Males's Attitudes toward Open Space Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Attributes at Night Beauty BeautyBeautyBeautyBeauty Safety SafetySafetySafety AccessAccess AccessAccess22 Appendix A CONFIDENTIALITY Your participation in this study is completely anonymous, which means that no one (not even the researchers) will be able to tell that your questionnaire responses come from you. No identifying information will be collected from you at any point in this study. Results will be stored in a password-protected folder on the researcher's computer. Individual responses from this study will be destroyed four years from the end of the study. PARTICIPANT RIGHTS All participation in this research study is voluntary. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies by agreeing to participate in this research study. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions or concerns, please contact: Student Researcher: Carly Batts [email protected] 772-233-5987 Faculty Advisor: Dr. Jason Evans [email protected] 386-822-7910 IRB Chair: Dr. Matthew Schrager [email protected] 386-822-8155 By completing this study, you are indicating that you have read the above information and are providing your informed consent. What is your gender? A.) Female B.) Male C.) Transgender D.) Other What is your age? A.) 18 -19 B.) 20-21 C.) 22-25 23 D.) 26-35 E.) 36-47 F.) 48- + What is your ethnicity? A.) White/Caucasian B.) Black/African American C.) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander D.) Native Indian or Alaskan Indian E.) Asian F.) Hispanic G.) Other What is your major? (open ended) Growing up what was your average household income? A.) less than $30,000 a year B.) between $30,500- $50,000 C.) between $55,000-$100,000 D.) $100,000 or more lower middle is 45-116,000 upper middle 116- 205 27-48.5 = working class What is your current relationship status? A.) Single B.) Dating C.) Married D.) Divorced E.) Widowed The following questions will be about your attitude towards an open space during the day: “Open space is any open piece of land that is undeveloped (has no buildings or other built structures) and is accessible to the public. Open space can include: Green space (land that is partly or completely covered with grass, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation)” (EPA 2013). 1. How beautiful is open space to you during the DAY? Please select 1-5 (1 being least beautiful, 5 being most beautiful) 2. How safe do you feel in an open space during the day? Please select 1-5 (1 being least safe, 5 being most safe) 3. If and when you would like to use open space for recreation how easily can you find it? (such as ride a bike, go for a hike, etc)? Please select 1-5 (1 being 24 least able to participate in recreation, 5 being most able to participate in recreation) 4. How often do you recreate outdoors in open space during the day? **start with this question A.) Once a day B.) Once a week C.) Once a month D.) Once a year E.) Never The following questions will be about your attitude towards open space during the NIGHT: 5. How beautiful is an open space to you at night? Please select 1-5 (1 being least beautiful, 5 being most beautiful) 6. How safe do you feel in an open space at night? Please select 1-5 (1 being least safe, 5 being most safe) 7. Can you easily access open space for recreation at night (such as ride a bike, go for a hike, etc)? Please select 1-5 (1 being least able to participate in recreation, 5 being most able to participate in recreation) **sentence structure 8. How often do you get to participate in recreational activities in an open space at night? F.) Once a day G.) Once a week H.) Once a month I.) Once a year J.) Never The following questions will be about the importance you place on attributes for open space in general: 9. How important is it for an open space to be beautiful? Please select 1-5 (1 being not important, 5 being most important) 10. How important is it for you to feel safe in an open space? Please select 1-5 (1 being most important, 5 being least important) 11. How important is it to you to be able to easily recreate in an open space? Please select 1-5 (1 being most important, 5 being least important) The following question will be about your residential preferences as a potential homeowner. 12. How likely are you to want to have a permanent residence in a rural environment? Rural referring to the outside of a city or town. Please select 1-5 (1 being least likely, 5 being most likely) The following question will be about how you feel towards conservation of open space environments: 25 13. How important is it to you to conserve open spaces? Please select 1-5 (1 being most important, 5 being least important) 26 27 Works Cited Clark, W. A. 2009. Changing Residential Preferences across Income, Education, and Age: Findings from the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality. Urban Affairs Review 44:334-355. Ge, J., and K. Hokoa. 2006. Research On Residential Lifestyles in Japanese Cities from the Viewpoints of Residential Preference, Residential Choice and Residential Satisfaction. Landscape and Urban Planning 78:165-178 Grover, R. and M. Vriens. 2006. The Handbook of Marketing Research: Uses, Misuses, and Future Advances. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Print. Hartig, T. and H. Staats. 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26:215-226 Haskell, L. and M. Randall. 1998. The politics of women’s safety: Sexual violence, women’s fear and the public/private split. Resources for Feminist Research 26: 113-149 Jabareen, Y. 2005. Culture and Housing Preferences in a Developing City. Environment Behavior 37:134-146 Kafarowski, J. 2005. Everyone should have a voice, everyone’s equal. Gender, Decision-Making and Environmental Policy in the Canadian Arctic. Levos, J., and T. L. Zacchilli. 2015. Nyctophobia: From imagined to realistic fears of the dark, Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research 20:102-110 Lichter, D., and K. M. Johnson. 2007. The Changing Spatial Concentration of America’s Rural Poor Population, Rural Sociology 72:331-358 28 MacBride-Stewart, S., Y. Gong, and J. Antell. 2016. Special Section: Exploring the interconnections between gender, health and nature, Public Health 10:1-8 McLeod, S. A. 2016. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Simply Psychology Metcalf, E. C., A. R. Graefe, N. E. Tauntvein, and R. C. Burns. 2015. Understanding Hunting Constraints And Negotiation Strategies: A Typology Of Female Hunters. Human Dimensions Of Wildlife 20:30-46. Pampel, F. C., P. M. Krueger, and J. T. Denney. 2010. Socioeconomic Disparities in Health Behaviors. Annual Review Sociology 36: 349-370 Women's Health USA. 2012. Household Composition. Women's Health USA N.p., Web. 16 Nov. 2016. Rayer, S. and S. Smith. 2014. Population Projections by Age for Florida and its Counties: Assessing Accuracy and the Impact of Adjustments. Population Research and Policy Review 33:747-770 Senior, M. L., C.J. Webster, and N. E. Blank. 2004. Residential Preferences versus Sustainable Cities: Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence from a Survey of Relocating Owner-Occupiers. The Town Planning Review 3:337 Sur, P. 2014. Safety in the Urban Outdoors: Women Negotiating Fear of Crime in the City of Kolkata. Journal of International Women’s Studies 15:212-226 Shiva, V. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. London. Zed. Print. Tarrant, M. A., and G.T. Green. 2010. Outdoor Recreation and the Predictive Validity of Environmental Attitudes. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal 21: 17-30 29 Wang, W., K. Parker, and P. Taylor. 2013. Breadwinner Moms. Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project. N.p., Web. 17 Nov. 2016. Zimmerman, M. E. 1987. Feminism, Deep Ecology, and Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 9:22-44